Again, What If Christians Went On Strike?
My initial argument can be found here. Randal Rauser asked about the practical specifics of how this might take place. They don't matter. What if Christians kept their faith to themselves? What if Christians didn't share their faith with anyone else? Grant this and then ask yourself if there is anything about the Christian religion that would survive into the future. We all think other religions would die out. Why then does he suppose that his faith would not? In order to suppose that his faith would not die out he needs to provide some objective evidence that his God is doing something now that would help convert people if Christians stopped sharing the gospel.
So, what objectively is his God doing now? He hasn't answered.
Randal instead replied: “I pointed out that the church’s dying out would be fully compatible with the existence of the Christian God.”
Ahhhh, yes. It seems Rauser uses that kind of escape way too often, which goes to show I must prove his faith is impossible before he will ever consider it to be improbable, an utterly unreasonable standard. Let me show you something by simply inserting the letter X in his sentence. Let it now read like this: “I pointed out that X would be fully compatible with the existence of the Christian God." Now replace X with the following words one by one:
evolution
if scientists came up with a theory of everything
the evolution of concepts about God
the evolution of morality
the revelation found in the Bible is indistinguishable from God not revealing himself at all
So I asked him to get serious with me. No more playing games. I asked him to answer the late Antony Flew's question. "What would count against your faith?" You know what he said? "The bones of Jesus."
Rauser is a master at playing games. He will not entertain that his faith is false. He's actually so good at it he's deceiving himself and doesn't know it. There isn't anything that counts against his faith. No matter what the problem is, it's all compatible with his faith, if by "compatible" he means it's still possible his faith is correct until I can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that it is false.
The bones of Jesus? Come on Randal. Get real. You and I and everyone else knows we will never find them, and even if we did there would be no way of knowing they really are his bones.
William Lane Craig has said the same thing. But I took him to task as well. Basically Craig and Rauser are saying that No Amount of Evidence or Reasoning Could Convince Me I'm Wrong.
And I'm dialoguing with people like this?
*Bangs head against the wall*
So, what objectively is his God doing now? He hasn't answered.
Randal instead replied: “I pointed out that the church’s dying out would be fully compatible with the existence of the Christian God.”
Ahhhh, yes. It seems Rauser uses that kind of escape way too often, which goes to show I must prove his faith is impossible before he will ever consider it to be improbable, an utterly unreasonable standard. Let me show you something by simply inserting the letter X in his sentence. Let it now read like this: “I pointed out that X would be fully compatible with the existence of the Christian God." Now replace X with the following words one by one:
evolution
if scientists came up with a theory of everything
the evolution of concepts about God
the evolution of morality
the revelation found in the Bible is indistinguishable from God not revealing himself at all
So I asked him to get serious with me. No more playing games. I asked him to answer the late Antony Flew's question. "What would count against your faith?" You know what he said? "The bones of Jesus."
Rauser is a master at playing games. He will not entertain that his faith is false. He's actually so good at it he's deceiving himself and doesn't know it. There isn't anything that counts against his faith. No matter what the problem is, it's all compatible with his faith, if by "compatible" he means it's still possible his faith is correct until I can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that it is false.
The bones of Jesus? Come on Randal. Get real. You and I and everyone else knows we will never find them, and even if we did there would be no way of knowing they really are his bones.
William Lane Craig has said the same thing. But I took him to task as well. Basically Craig and Rauser are saying that No Amount of Evidence or Reasoning Could Convince Me I'm Wrong.
And I'm dialoguing with people like this?
*Bangs head against the wall*